|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: German judge rules child circumcision as child abuse. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
to claim that its origins had been anything but religious IS a absolute lie methinks. Yes; you thinks. But can you supports?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
This thread's discussion has a lot to do with cultural bias in science/medicine as well as religious involvement in it, and....well....wanking! No it doesn't. This thread has to do with why certain members of society over-obsess on matters of sexuality and feel a right to make everyone else's sexuality their priority. This thread is about people who are, quite frankly, too damn hung upand creepily soon what happens with the penises of other people's children. This thread's discussion has to do with whether a parent should have the right to make medical decisions for their child. When it comes to tonsils, teeth, ears, and twin-branding, it's apparently okay to leave it up to the folks. But if it has to do with peepees, then suddenly everyone's interested in legislating what rights parents have over their children. And, lastly, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with wanking. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Why is the sexual aspect then used at all as a rationale? Who cares what the rationale is? This thread isn't about the rationale. It's about whether parents have the right.
... why does a healthy piece of a child need to be removed if not for cultural reasons? It needs to be removed for the obvious reason that the parents told the doctor to remove it.
if a grown man wants to have his healthy foreskin removed, fine. This thread isn't about grown men. It's about infants.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
That there have been very vocal advocates for cutting bits off other people's sexual organs under a whole variety of pretenses throughout the last two centuries. And they're not the topic. Nor do the last two centuries have anything to do with what is right today.
It's about people who are, quite frankly, so hung up - and creepily so - on what happens with the penises of other people's children that they want to cut bits off all of them. And this thread's not about those people. Try to be relevant. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
In this thread, you have consistently chosen bad reasoning and ad-hominem over honest debate. Is there anything else to say? The topic is nonsense. Anyone making a big deal out of it is just silly.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
Circumcisors and the circumcision lobby are definitely on topic. The circumcision lobby? Stop being ridiculous. If you have a point, make it. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
And the legal principle at work is that parents have this right only when the decisions they make are in the best interest of their child. And parents have the right to determine whether circumcision is in the best interest of the child. What is so hard to understand about this for you?
The question is whether parents are entitled to make bad medical decisions for their child, and the answer is "no." Until you can demonstrate that circumcision is a 'bad' medical decision, then I'm afraid your point is completely lost.
Children are not the property of their parents; they're individual citizens of our society and they're entitled to have society advocate for their interests, even when that advocacy might overrule a decision a parent has made. Then what is the point of having parents if their only role is to pass on society's agendas to their children? Do parents have any meaningful right in determining how their children are raised?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Do they also have the right to determine whether it's in the best interests of the child to flog him in order to drive out the demons? Is flogging the topic here?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
So the obvious adult thing to do is to start implying that your debate opponents are pedophiles right? The obvious adult thing to do is to treat this topic with the level of seriousness it deserves: absolutely none. 'Nuff said.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
CPS gets wind that you like science fiction novels? Be prepared for a home visit that puts your custody rights in jeopardy. (That apparently happened to a fan of Piers Anthony's novels.) Or maybe a rumor gets started that you abuse prescription drugs - you may not even find out you're under investigation until your kids just don't come home one day, because they've been taken to a foster home. But reading science fiction novels and abusing prescription drugs isn't really the topic of this thread. And the fact that these are currently 'acceptable' reasons for interfering in a parent's right to raise their child: (a) doesn't make it right that they are 'acceptable' reasons, and(b) doesn't mean infant circumcision should be added to the list of 'acceptable' reasons. So, as is typical, your argument misses the mark from every angle. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
But reading science fiction novels and abusing prescription drugs isn't really the topic of this thread. I didn't claim that it was. Good. Then perhaps you can explain why you brought those things up.
And the fact that these are currently 'acceptable' reasons for interfering in a parent's right to raise their child: (a) doesn't make it right that they are 'acceptable' reasons, and(b) doesn't mean infant circumcision should be added to the list of 'acceptable' reasons. I didn't make any of these arguments, either. Then why did you bring up that crap about CPS and science fiction novels?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The burden of evidence is on those who support the widespread practice of amputating a completely functional and normal part of the penis You should probably address your arguments, then, toward people who 'support the [supposedly] widespread practice' of circumcision. Folk like Buz and oni (though I think he's just messin' around). No one else in this thread supports circumcision. Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
So we started the practice with no justification but now we need a justification to stop? Of course we don't need a justification to stop. No one is asking you to justify your decision to not circumcise your male children. If the entire country stopped circumcising their infant males tomorrow, no one in this thread would demand justification for people making that decisionBuz and oni being possible exceptions.
far more minor in comparison, In comparison to circumcision? No one has yet provided any evidence to support the often repeated claim that circumcision is a major procedure that 'disfigures' or 'mutilates'. Nothing at all; except, of course, the oft-repeated claim.
Additionally, no one is making any particular claims about the medical benefits of ear piercing. Don't you know? Guys love a girl with pierced ears like chicks love guys with cut dicks. Have you read any of oni's posts?
So either you or I are vastly misinformed about what constitues female circumcision. The reason there is confusion is because 'circumcision' is a term meant to refer specifically to the excision of foreskin from the penis and its application to the female genitalia is loose, vague, and by personal discretion. In other words, if it's a clitorectomy you want to discuss, talk about a clitorectomy. Don't call it 'female circumcision'because it's obviously difficult for people to pin down exactly what you're talking about.
original justification for the exact same reasons. We aren't talking about 'original justifications'. Stop trying to bring other people's arguments into the discussion. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Yes, you have been defending the practice. Defending what you perceive as the right of others to circumcise is defending the practice. No it's not. Stop being a disingenuous tit.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
But you won't be able to explain the difference, will you? The difference is between supporting an action and supporting people's right to perform the action. It's the difference between supporting gay marriage and encouraging everyone to be gay. It's the difference between supporting socialized health care and not wanting people to pay for care out of their own pockets if they choose. It's the difference between supporting a parent's right to circumcise their child if they want and arguing that parents everywhere should start circumcising their male children. And if you can't see that difference, I am sorry; but I guess that is your problem. And I think everyone in this thread has made it clear enough where they stand. If you are having a hard time figuring that out, so be it. JonLove your enemies!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024